Journalist at fault?

It is a writer’s obligation to impose narrative. Everyone does this. Every time you take a lump of material and turn it into something you are imposing a narrative. It’s a writer’s obligation to do this. And, by the same token, it is apparently a journalist’s obligation to pretend that he never does anything of the sort. The journalist claims to believe that the narrative emerges from the lump of material, rises up and smacks you in the face like marsh gas. 

- Nora Ephron

When one tells a story, they must introduce the context and they must present from a particular perspective. Regardless of how objective one tries to be, they will naturally bring their own thoughts into effect while crafting the narrative of the story. But because a journalist crafts his or her narrative of a story, does not necessarily mean that the information is inherently bias. In fact, most journalists could not slip personal bias past editors and through a “code of professional ethics that emphasizes impartiality as a core value. (Bennett 2012)” I have examined FOX News and its inclination to present misleading information several times and as a result, my blog seems entirely dedicated to exemplifying the bias in all media outlets. FOX News is a particular exception to the rule, however, as they have made producing biased material a profitable venture. Most news organizations are more interested in manufacturing a “marketable, neutral product. ” Bennett cites Everette Dennis saying, “. . . profits are central to the media; the news is more and more driven by market forces and market segmentation. Deliberately or even innocently alienating a portion of the audience through unfair and biased coverage of candidates and causes would be self-destructive. More important, it would be absolutely unacceptable to publishers, broadcast executives, and owners, who last time I checked, were still running the show.”

So who is responsible for the bias in the news?

New Media and Politics

With the growing popularity of social media, it is natural that politics would find its way into the budding venue. Massive amounts of people use Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and others daily. Politicians and their media consultants have spotted the opportunity to use the new mediums for exposure in uncharted realms. Clinton, Bush, Trump, Rubio, and even Sanders have all been spotted campaigning via social media in the last few months. The changing media has always brought change in politics or at least the politicians and what they do and say. The relationship between politics and the media has been historically well understood. Countless research has examined they why's and how's and the information is constantly being updated. Radio changed the way politicians ran, then television. Both abrupt and momentous. Now, it seems that social media may be the third wave of information technology to change the landscape of politics and news. It is too soon to know what the implications of social media might entail. How do you think social media will change politics?

How Can We Improve the Media?

The news has neglected its responsibility to produce reliable political information. It is necessary for political information to be presented in an honest and competent fashion for a democracy to effectively function, but modern media has replaced its duty to the public with private interests. Political Scientist William Bennet discusses several ways in which the media can improve its duty to democracy.

1. One method is to increase the use of interactive technology like social media as a means to get citizens more involved with politics and link one another together. 
2. Another is to provide a historical context to better explain the origins of issues and prevent politicians from reinventing them to fit their needs.
3. Bennet suggests Independent-Issue Agendas as a way to increase diversity in news outlets.
4. Better explanations of issues and how political decisions are reached.
5. And one of the most effective ways to promote better media habits is to offer diverse sources and perspectives. Ideally, the sources are credible and outside of the typical circles.

All of these are good ideas to promote a media that is better suited to serve a democracy but how practical are they? Is it possible to change the media in a free-press society? Are there any other ways that the media could be made better?

Why is the Media Bias?

The news is extremely important to us, yet we allow it to be influenced by business interests and political agendas. The profit-driven interests of business are not interested in providing information to promote a democracy, but only to increase revenue. In fact, we have little to no checks in place to maintain accountability of the media. According to political scientist Lance Bennet, “Substantial evidence indicates that the news is largely a freewheeling entity shaped by a combination of commercial forces in the news business, technologies of the communication perfected by politicians and their media consultants, and the tastes and personal entertainment habits of citizens.” Bennet even goes so far as to say that, “More than in any other advanced democracy, political information in the United States is manufactured and sold with few of the quality controls that even far less important household products have.” With no restraint on the media, and its desire to increase profit rather than present fair information, it is obvious that the media will incorporate bias into their information.

Bennet, W. Lance. News: The Politics of Illusion. 9^th. Pearson Education. 2012.

The Origin of Media and Politics

Often Franklin Roosevelt is cited as the first president to effectively use the media as a tool to influence public opinion. But I think that even before Franklin Roosevelt’s fireside chats, another Roosevelt truly pioneered the use of the media for political capital. It is well established that public support is necessary for the president to effectively execute his will. Abraham Lincoln said, “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment nothing can fail, without it nothing can succeed.” These precise words ring true today. With public support, a president is able to work effectively, especially with congress.  The respected political scientist George Edwards says,  “A high level of public approval increases the chances of the president receiving support in Congress for his programs” (Edwards).  And when industrialization brought innovation in mass communication, it is obvious that the president would use the new venue to reach a relatively massive number of Americans. Around the turn of the 20^th century, the progressive movement was taking hold of American politics. Theodore Roosevelt had been a champion of progressive reform and it made him a natural choice for the huge population of workers who wanted to see reform. “The growth of newsgathering organizations and newspaper chains made it possible to communicate faster and with more people across the entire nation” and “the advent of yellow journalism, combined with the increased activism of government, generated more interest in the opinions and behavior of public officials, particularly the president.” According to Edwards,  “Theodore Roosevelt, more than any of his predecessors, took advantage of these developments to focus attention on himself, his policies, and his activities. He was the first president to give reporters a room in the White House and the first to hold regular meetings with the press. Using his position as “a bully pulpit,” Roosevelt rallied public support for his positions and proposals.” (Edwards) Roosevelt seized the new tools of mass communication to promote his agenda at an opportune time in history. His charisma and charm combined with his decisiveness and will made him irresistible to the public, who needed a strong leader to fight for their interests. Timing and innovation in mass communication set Roosevelt up to forever change the relationship between the media, the politics, and the people.

Edwards, G., Wayne, S. Presidential Leadership: Politics and Policy Making. 8^th Cengage Wadsworth 2010.

Glenn Reynolds on Refugee Crisis

Media has tremendous power in setting cultural guidelines and in shaping political discourse. With the current upheaval happening in Syria and Americans demanding action, I became perturbed to think of the prejudice news outlets and the distorted information they give to the public. I hoped that during such a paramount time for our country that the news stations would strive to keep their personal opinions abroad in order for us to be rightly informed to handle this turmoil correctly. So I set out to discover if there was any change in the articles this week. Admittedly, for most of my blog posts I have routinely looked to Fox News for a notably bias article. While reading about the Syrian refugees this week, I stressed to find different news sources on the topic in order to find the most legitimate information.

I found an article on the Syrian refugee debacle written by Glenn Reynolds of USA Today. Disturbingly Reynolds included immense amounts of personal opinions through out his article. Debatably even more than those within the Fox news sources. Even from the very first sentence Reynolds is criticizing President Obama's tactics in handling the matter. He continues with a plethora of unchallenged assumptions opposing the refugee resettlement and repeatedly accusing Obama of being single handedly responsible for the entire crisis. Ending his article with, "The next president will find undoing this damage a tough job."

By using such strong language I am sure many readers were eager to jump on Reynolds' side without reading up on the matter for themselves which I find unsettling. Once again writers are using their platform in order to spread their opinion throughout the nation when all we really need is the truth. As a result, readers are focusing on personal democratic vs. republicans arguments while also "hating on" the president. When in reality we are currently facing a doomsday scenario where we should be concerned about the protection of people all over the world.

We may be misinformed and make detrimental decisions towards the overall wellbeing of our country, but hey, at least Glenn Reynolds got a paycheck.


Article can be found at:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/11/23/obamas-syrian-refugee-debacle-assad-libya-column/76219424/

I thought I'd share this for a laugh.

Paris Attacks: FOX NEWS journalist Geraldo Rivera inflates number of Par...

 It seems the country has united in support of Paris after the attacks on November 13th. Both conservative and liberal media outlets seized the opportunity to cover the tragedy in Paris. While, one would hope that the media would refrain from exploiting the situation, it seems that even in these dark hours, an agenda is pressed. Geraldo Rivera of Fox news inflated Paris's fatality number to 500 in a live stream on the 15th. Geraldo claimed the tragedy was Paris's 9/11, and cited the growing Syrian Refugee issue. By exaggerating the severity of the attacks and grouping it with our own tragedy, Fox is effectively taking an emotional approach to appeal to our personal convictions and attempting to persuade viewers based on limited and manipulated information. Conservative ideology  is generally associated with tight border control and anti-immigration policies. In this particular story, Fox chose to frame the issue in regards to immigration policy.

Fox at Planned Parenthood's throat... again

I watched a short video from Fox News and Hannity claiming to "expose" planned parenthood. They say that the evidence is "incontrovertible". Fox shows clips of an abortion specialist discussing a procedure with an unidentified individual, but only shows short clips here and there and removes the sound and entire dialogue from the video, while superimposing "subtitles" in the video. Many claim that the video is doctored and completely edited out of context, and Fox refutes this by saying that you can find the whole video for yourself... short of the court ordered restraint of the video. Fox does not discuss where or how you can find this information for yourself, only that the video is true and that it is not edited. Fox's conservative nature makes is a prime proponent of pro-life views. Fox has a history of attacking planned-parenthood and its practices, this one-sided and manipulated display of "evidence" should be considered with caution.

@oreillyfactor: "All the trillions spent on social justice & instituting a nanny state has led to more poverty."

Using words like "nanny state" and "poverty" seem like a clear framing of information. It is interesting that Fox would pose the question "Is the U.S.A. on the rise or decline? Then immediately follow up with an ambitiously vague answer. As if no research was conducted to produce their answer. It seems that Fox news and Bill O'reilly promote conservative views without truly considering the implications of their accusations. Thoughts?